Translating The Bible

[mroger]

[url="http://www.intouchmission.org/ActivitiesProjects.htm"]Given JPII's history, could this actually be the first Greek -Polish translation?[/url]

[quote]THE POLISH BIBLE TRANSLATION PROJECT
Piotr (Peter) Zaremba and his colleagues in Poznan, Poland have embarked on a project to offer the first translation of the Bible done by Polish Evangelicals from Greek and Hebrew texts.

Currently there are no accurate evangelical translations of the entire Bible in modern Polish that would be suitable for studying the Word of God.

To date, pastor Zaremba has translated into Polish, books on theology, Christian living, discipleship and commentaries by such authors as Charles Ryrie, D. James Kennedy and J. Sidlow Baxter.[/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

An early and influential Polish translation of the Bible was made by the Polish Jesuit, Jakub Wujek (1541-97). This translation shaped the style of Polish Biblical language.

wiki got it from the polish encyclopedia

Todays catholic version is called the Millennium Bible

[Mateo el Feo]

Let me emphasize what they are saying:

[quote]THE POLISH BIBLE TRANSLATION PROJECT
Piotr (Peter) Zaremba and his colleagues in Poznan, Poland have embarked on a project to offer the [b][u]first translation [/u] [/b] of the Bible done [b][u]by Polish Evangelicals [/u] [/b] from Greek and Hebrew texts.

Currently there are [b][u]no [/u] [/b] accurate [b][u]evangelical translations [/u] [/b] of the entire Bible in modern Polish that would be suitable for studying the Word of God.

To date, pastor Zaremba has translated into Polish, books on theology, Christian living, discipleship and commentaries by such authors as Charles Ryrie, D. James Kennedy and J. Sidlow Baxter.[/quote]They don't want any old translation...they want an [i]Evangelical[/i] translation.

So, much like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, they have to make sure that the translation fits their theology.

[SJRod55]

[quote]They don't want any old translation...they want an Evangelical translation.

So, much like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, they have to make sure that the translation fits their theology.[/quote]

Agreed

[son_of_angels]

You know if Bible readers learned Latin or Greek it would save a lot of time and trees....

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='son_of_angels' post='1183557' date='Feb 2 2007, 09:57 PM']
You know if Bible readers learned Latin or Greek it would save a lot of time and trees....
[/quote]

Haha so true

[Nathan]

True that. The vast majority of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Biblical scholars now agree on the same Hebrew and Greek source texts to be used for all new translations: the current editions of the [i]Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia[/i] (Masoretic Text) and the Nestle/Aland [i]Greek New Testament[/i].

Imagine if all Christians just learned Hebrew and Greek, what it might do for apologetics, evangelism, and ecumenism.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nathan' post='1184867' date='Feb 4 2007, 07:07 PM']
True that. The vast majority of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Biblical scholars now agree on the same Hebrew and Greek source texts to be used for all new translations: the current editions of the [i]Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia[/i] (Masoretic Text) and the Nestle/Aland [i]Greek New Testament[/i].

Imagine if all Christians just learned Hebrew and Greek, what it might do for apologetics, evangelism, and [b]ecumenism.[/b]
[/quote]

False ecumenism is bad.

And anyway, I think the Latin text is better than the Greek or Hebrew

Edited February 5, 2007 by StThomasMore

[homeschoolmom]

How can a translation be better than the originals?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1184894' date='Feb 4 2007, 09:54 PM']
How can a translation be better than the originals?
[/quote]
it can't, it can only be faithful.

[homeschoolmom]

[Aloysius]

the translation cannot be better than the originals. but a translation of ancient manuscripts available in the fourth century can be better than a translation of the only manuscripts left sixteen centuries later.

the Vulgate was infallily determined by the Council of Trent to be without doctrinal error. Any mistake in translation in the Vulgate, therefore, cannot be considered doctrinally in error. It can, therefore, be trusted as the inerrant word of God.

the oldest manuscripts we have today, whilst useful for scholarship and dialogue, are not necessarily as trustworthy to the average Catholic as devotional scriptures ass the Vulgate is.

Ecumenism is not always false. Therefore, when one says "it can be useful for ecumenism" the proper response is not "false ecumenism is bad " but rather "yes, it can help us work to find understanding and agreement such that these Christian sects will no longer consider it necessary to be seperated from the True Church" ESPECIALLY if the statement "it can be useful for ecumenism" includes "it can be useful for evangelization"... for true ecumenism is just another form of evangelization to those already partially evangelized saying "you have heard much of the good news: now hear that there is good news of a Church founded by Christ and led by the Holy Ghost"

[Resurrexi]

[quote]the translation cannot be better than the originals. but a translation of ancient manuscripts available in the fourth century can be better than a translation of the only manuscripts left sixteen centuries later.[/quote]

That's exactly what I meant by "And anyway, I think the Latin text is better than the Greek or Hebrew": The Vulgata Clementina is better than the Greek and Hebrew documents we have today.

[Aloysius]

Which is not to say that those manuscripts are not of great value to scripture scholarship, however. An attempt to find the original texts is a very noble effort; where it may become problematic is when we begin to place the latest scholarly guess about how the original text may have read based upon these manuscripts into the devotional bible of the average layman. It creates confusion and potential distrust with their devotional scriptures.

In scholarly discussion, it is not profitable to cite the vulgate and declare that the oldest manuscripts are in error. There is no evidence that these manuscripts have errors; there is no evidence that the Vulgate does not have errors (in relation to the original text). There is the assurance of faith that the Vulgate has no doctrinal errors as defined by trent, but in scholarly discussion the oldest possible manuscripts are just as valuable as Jerome's Vulgate; often the one provides insight to the other such that we can say "oh, Jerome was thinking this when he translated that word thusly" et cetera et cetera.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1185642' date='Feb 5 2007, 04:56 PM']
Which is not to say that those manuscripts are not of great value to scripture scholarship, however. An attempt to find the original texts is a very noble effort; where it may become problematic is when we begin to place the latest scholarly guess about how the original text may have read based upon these manuscripts into the devotional bible of the average layman. It creates confusion and potential distrust with their devotional scriptures.

[b]In scholarly discussion, it is not profitable to cite the vulgate and declare that the oldest manuscripts are in error.[/b] There is no evidence that these manuscripts have errors; there is no evidence that the Vulgate does not have errors (in relation to the original text). There is the assurance of faith that the Vulgate has no doctrinal errors as defined by trent, but in scholarly discussion the oldest possible manuscripts are just as valuable as Jerome's Vulgate; often the one provides insight to the other such that we can say "oh, Jerome was thinking this when he translated that word thusly" et cetera et cetera.
[/quote]

Trent also says though that in public lectures (which I would say is scholarly discussion) the Vulgate is to be heald as authentic.

[quote name='The Sacred and Oecumenical Council of Trent']Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, [b]be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic[/b]; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.[/quote]